It’s a simple recipe for a thoroughly unwholesome meal: one McChicken sandwich placed between a Double Cheeseburger’s two patties, both ordered off McDonald’s popular Dollar Menu for a grand total of $2.16. Crudely christened the “McGangBang” by Daytona Beach customers in 2006, the sandwich has steadily earned a voracious following. Today, McDonald’s diners consume the McGangBang both online and off, ordering the absurd sandwich from befuddled employees, while documenting their experiences via Flickr, YouTube and, yes, even Twitter. And yet, the way McDonald’s opts to address this public relations pickle will prove to be even more interesting than how their customers are customizing the dollar sandwiches.

To date, the company has issued a single statement on the McGangBang, using a typical smile, deflect and evade approach:

“McDonald’s loves to hear from our valued guests, especially when they customize and create meal combinations to fit their personal taste preferences – no matter how unique! Whether it’s requesting an Egg McMuffin without cheese or a Big Mac with extra secret sauce, McDonald’s is proud to satisfy our customers’ requests and provide them with a variety of great-tasting meals every time they visit our restaurants.”

Is it just me or is ordering a sandwich named after a group sex act slightly different than asking for “an Egg McMuffin without cheese?” (Unless I’m unaware of some naughty new move!)

Oddly enough, I first heard of the McGangBang the same day that I watched a young boy on YouTube teach the world “How To Smoke Smarties” — yet another reconstitution of a defenseless manufacturer’s product. After crushing up the classic sugary candy into a powder and holding it in his mouth, the child demonstrated how it appeared to seep out like cigarette smoke. His instructional video has over 350,000 views and countless copycat posts, mainly by kids.

While folks have always reconstructed meals for their own amusement, food companies can no longer expect such experiences to remain either private or temporary. As fast and fleeting as the internet is, it also acts as a permanent public record for consumers’ every little experiment. Whether McDonald’s likes it or not, the McGangBang has already left an indelible mark on their brand.

No matter how unsavory the publicity is, McDonald’s must respond. Second only to pushing their products is pushing their message, and such an easy entree to the public conversation is a rare gift. Sure, it’s not in their best interest to capitalize on the name “McGangBang,” but they damn well ought to seize on the energy and enthusiasm behind it. A few ideas:

• Create an open contest for the best new sandwich created using only existing menu items. Put the (least rude) submissions up for an online vote, and offer the winner a limited menu run.
• Design a secret “off-the-menu” menu comprised completely of existing items, remixed a la In-N-Out e.g. Chicken McNuggets served with Big Mac Special Sauce or a Quarter Pounder with a layer of French Fries inside. Make no formal announcements. Instead, simply inform employees of the new offerings and wait for word to leak out.
• Rename the McGangBang something more palatable yet rich in innuendo e.g. the McOhYeah, the McLovin’ or the McNasty. Inform employees to expect orders for the “McGangBang.” Prepare them to respond with a simple one liner, “Oh, you mean the Mc____” Subvert the crude name with a new name of your own choosing.

In short, McDonald’s cannot do nothing. The challenge is unusual, but it could be far worse. Kids could be smoking McNuggets.

- Johnny

For a comprehensive background on the genesis of the McGangBang, click here.

Before checking out for the weekend, we thought we’d share something silly and wonderful with you. A Flickr user going by the name of “Bishopia” has sparked a new viral trend with his “CD Cover Meme,” a challenge to create your own randomly generated album cover. Don’t have a drop of musical talent? Who cares!

First, click the random article button on Wikipedia. Voila! There’s your band’s name. Second, select the last line of the last quote on QuotationPage’s random option. Bam! There’s your album title. Finally, choose the third picture off Flickr’s “Explore the Last Seven Days” page. Ta da! You have a (fake) band, a (fake) album and (fake) cover art.

This meme immediately reminded me of my colleague Kat’s recent “random delight” post, only now, by inviting people to design and submit original artwork, the randomness phenomena has matured into something new: a call to creative action. Judging from the thousands of impressive submissions, people are taking this silly challenge quite seriously.

– Johnny

Click through for People Are Amazing’s CD art…

(St George’s Hall - You Only Lie When You’re Afraid, Johnny)

(The Gay Parisienne - Desperately Unrehearsed, Kat)

Last week, my colleagues and I noticed the addition of an oddly imposing structure atop the High Line. Upon closer inspection, it appears that workers have installed a security fence on the section directly above 20th Street. While I couldn’t find any information addressing the fence specifically, the High Line’s website informed me that, “the first section of the High Line (Gansevoort Street to 20th Street) is currently on budget, and is projected to open in the spring of 2009.” Using my cunning deductive abilities, I’ve concluded that this is a temporary border fence to keep this spring’s visitors from stumbling onto the construction of the second section.

Other progress since our last update includes new park benches (one is pictured above, covered for winter) and, in the background, the emergent shell of Cary Tamarkin’s 456 West 19th St. building. We’ll be sure to update you with any new progress!

Once upon a time, in an age before TiVo and Netflix, colleagues would gather around the watercooler to chat about the previous night’s popular TV shows. The shared experience of critiquing the latest episodes was a social blessing–or for those unable to tune in, a recurring curse. Whether watched or discussed, TV shows were immoveable objects around which lives were expected to revolve. Over time, however, the opposite became true.

Today, the very questions we ask each other about televison have changed. As programs break free from their allotted timeslots and onto Hulu, iPhones and Xboxes, the question “did you watch _____?” has become “are you watching _____?” Fixed broadcast content is on its way out, with viewers instead watching shows whenever, wherever they want. Take AMC’s breakout hit Mad Men. Judging purely by its weekly viewership, one wouldn’t necessarily deem the show a tremendous success. And yet in the past six months it seems as if the Don Draper and his misogynist creatives are on the tip of everyone’s tongue. Did your friends watch last night’s episode of Mad Men? Not necessarily. But are they watching Mad Men? Damn right they are! Only now, it’s on their own terms, their own schedule, their own pace and their own devices.

As a result, weekly watercooler conversations have all but evaporated. Barring the Superbowl, the Oscars and certain major political events, today’s audience no longer experiences TV en masse. Unbound to a prescribed way of watching, viewers have turned online to discuss shows, where they can sort and sift through specifically what’s relevant to them. But god forbid they catch up to real-time! Fan websites, for instance, must now post “spoiler alerts” when discussing up-to-date episodes in order to prevent their readers from learning untimely plot points.

Our clever culture will no doubt adjust to these time-shifting technologies, but not without a heavy dose of nostalgic protest. “I remember when my friends used to watch the same shows, at the same time, and talk about them afterwards,” they’ll say. With any hope, the same technologies behind our liberation from broadcast TV will rekindle the faded joys of tuning in together.

This coming Tuesday, millions of Americans will come together to watch our nation swear in its first ever African-American President. Evidently, the spirit of unity is spreading beyond the crowds. Several interesting media partnerships have emerged to make the inauguration available to those eager to watch, but unable to attend.

The most newsworthy of the lot is MSNBC’s deal with Starbucks to simulcast the event in 650 coffeeshops in three cities. But the list goes on, with particular attention paid to making the ceremony available online. Fox News is expanding their existing partnership with Internet TV provider Hulu to provide free live coverage from noon to 2PM. Hulu’s competitor Joost, on the other hand, will stream CBS’s broadcast of the event. Other networks have opted to team up with popular social networking sites. User-produced CurrentTV will air viewers’ reactions in realtime via micro-blogging site Twitter. Elsewhere, powerhouses have united; CNN.com has integrated its site such that Facebook users can watch the Senator turn President along with their friends. Well, sort of.

While most people rushed home on election night to watch “regular” TV, the workday timing of this heavily anticipated inauguration seems to have led the big networks to rush online. I’m hopeful that the creative partnerships spurred by this historic day will encourage television networks to further embrace this type of cross-platform, deformated content. But on Tuesday, that’s not all I’ll be hopeful about!

2008 was an unforgettable year for us at People Are Amazing. Aside from Kat getting married, and me getting typhus, we launched this very blog and (despite our best efforts), it is still up and running! Since then, we’ve been privileged to interview a number of amazing people from Kalliopi Kohas, owner of Greek pine sap purveyor Mastiha to Tony Dusko, 5th grade teacher by day, whimsical web animator by night. A personal highpoint was hearing the wise words of 90 year-old Dave Crawford on growing up during the Great Depression and how best to navigate a crumby economy.

But the recession didn’t keep us from visiting some intriguing places. John took a trip to Brooklyn’s own Fine and Raw for a taste of artisanal, dairy/sugar/preservative-free chocolate. He brought back some perishable, refrigerated samples and we made sure they never reached room temperature! Kat found herself in the Mid-West wandering the aisles of Cincinatti’s own supermarket/amusement park Jungle Jim’s. Food, it seems, is a minor obsession at P.A.A.. Kat’s post about local panini-makers S’Wich found its way onto foodie blog Eater in May. I wrote about an awful new bottled tap water I came across at a bodega; in turn, that company curiously linked to our post, “Tap’NY Must Think You’re Stupid,” in their press section.

Surprisingly, our most popular post ended up being about a miscolored canine. In early May, I was experimenting with ways to boost traffic and I noticed that the search term “green puppy” was “volcanic” in popularity on Google Trends. Apparently, a Labrador with a pea-colored coat had been born in New Orleans and really people wanted to see the pictures. I posted the two images available at the time, unaware that moments later the popular site Buzzfeed would link to our post. Within a matter of minutes, we had thousands of viewers visiting our humble little blog. Thus, the “Green Puppy Effect” was born.

Obviously, you never quite know where a year will take you. This time last year, People Are Amazing didn’t even exist. But between blogging about diabetic rappers and Colorado grease thieves, we were thrilled to ride the ups and downs of 2008. Luckily for us, amazing things are always on the horizon and 2009 is sure to provide hearty fodder for the blog. Happy New Year and thanks for reading!

On a conference call with reporters Wednesday, the Beatles’ Apple Corps Ltd, MTV Games, and Rock Band manufacturer Harmonix announced an exclusive Beatles video game to be released in the winter of next year. This comes as a welcome surprise for the many critics who feel that those licensing the Fab Four’s music have been painstakingly slow in adapting to digital culture. Though the band did brave new territory with Cirque du Soleil’s LOVE, for their own odd reasons, they have still yet to release their coveted catalog for purchase on iTunes.

On the shoulders of Harmonix and Guitar Hero makers Activision, video game manufacturers are aggressively partnering with the music industry. According to The Economist, aging rockers Aerosmith have made more money in licensing income from Guitar Hero than from sales of any of their albums. But I have a hunch that these lucrative partnerships are indicative of something bigger.

In the past month, we’ve witnessed a presidential candidate advertising in Xbox 360 games and Brian Eno release an ambient musical instrument for the iPhone. We’ve watched Internet TV provider Hulu celebrate their first anniversary and Netflix and TiVo partner to stream on-demand rentals. Obviously, we are living in an era of rapid technological transition, but these innovations seem more enduring than past experiments. Virtual reality goggles anyone? While the Internet provides us with entertainment everywhere, it also raises our expectations of more traditional forms. Analog “one-purpose” mediums like TV, radio and even video games are learning that to survive you must not only partner with the competition but merge your mediums. It seems on this long and winding road, there’s only one lane and it’s moving fast.

Addressing our economy back in April, President Bush refused to utter the term “recession,” opting instead for dopey euphemisms like “tough time,” “slowdown,” and “rough patch.” But as the domino effect of Lehman’s bankruptcy topples bank after bank, week after week, the discussion amongst grown-ups shifts to the plausibility of “depression.” Facing such a bleak outlook, we thought it would benefit our readers to share a personal account of the Great Depression, not necessarily to judge the economic parallels, but for the anecdotal guidance only our elders can provide. Dave Crawford, a 92 year old retired law professor and veteran of WWII was 13 years old when the stock market crashed in the fall of 1929. Earlier this month, he spoke with People Are Amazing:

Johnny Williams: As a 92 year old who lived through the 1930’s, do you think that we’re approaching another depression?

Dave Crawford: Definitely. And I think we may be even worse off than we were then. I think the big difference now is that nobody even dares use the word “depression.” They say “maybe we’re in recession,” but I think the fundamentals are even worse than they were then. I hope I’m wrong. In 1929 it was like falling off the edge of a cliff, people starting jumping out of their offices in Wall Street…it was that bad of a crash. It wasn’t until FDR came along in the early 1930’s that we began to rebound. He did a remarkable job; he was a real savior for our nation. We have no such leadership in evidence at this point. FDR came right in and said, “listen, this gap between the rich and the poor is ridiculous” and he inaugurated plans like the National Recovery Administration that were anathema to the wealthy. But we don’t have anybody like that now to take hold and close the ever-widening gap between the rich and the middle class and the poor.

Johnny: What are your earliest memories of the Depression era?

Dave: What comes to mind more than anything else was the new junior high school in the suburban Philadelphia area where my family lived. They started building in 1928 and they had all the steelwork up in 1929, but at the time of the crash the construction just stopped. I still remember driving by the skeleton framework of the school that I was supposed to be going to that fall. Gradually they got back on track but that skeleton framework is still very vivid in my mind. Also I remember one of the dances at my high school where the charge was “a penny a pound” for your date’s weight. So if she weighed a hundred pounds, it was only a buck for admission.

Johnny: Did they actually make the girls get on scales?

Dave: Yes, they did! So it was best to be with a girl who was very thin!

Johnny: That certainly wouldn’t fly today! So how do you think the Depression affected the country as a whole?

Dave: I think back then there was a more realistic feeling about it. Everybody recognized that we were really in a depression, whereas I get the feeling now from the press that we’re still talking about whether or not we’re even in a recession. But nobody really seems to be using the “depression” word. Hopefully they’ve now gotten over that one and realized that it’s at least a recession. In many ways I think we’re worse off with things happening more gradually than before. But one of the saddest things about the Depression was the number of brilliant, talented and capable boys and girls whose parents could not afford to send them to college even though the tuition then was about $400 for a first-rate college. I think that the nation as a whole, in addition to each individual, suffered in the long run by not having these talented children developed at university and college levels. In my own class in high school some of the brightest children just couldn’t go on to higher education. As for how it affected my own mindset, I still turn out any light burning that isn’t being used even today. Coming from that time, I can’t help but do that. That’s the way everybody lived.

Johnny: Were people pessimistic during those years?T

Dave: No, no, no…I think everybody was upbeat. Sure, everybody was suffering to one degree or another, but you put your shoulder to the wheel and did what you had to do and hunkered down, no question about it.

Johnny: How do you think the style of leadership has changed versus Roosevelt? You said he came in as a “savior”…

Dave: I don’t see another Roosevelt on the horizon right now…unless it turns out to be Obama. I think he’ll have to be a lot more firm and aggressive than he’s been but understandably he has to be elected first and has to handle the political situation now as he sees it. I think he has the capacity to lead us closer to where we were than the alternative right now.

Johnny: What was special about Roosevelt in terms of his style of leadership?

Dave: Well, he was a patrician and people look up to presidents like that, even if they deny that they do. He came in and took hold quickly and his famous line, “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself,” was dead right. Of course, we’ve been spoon-fed fear ever since the weapons of mass destruction and that’s what we have to live with now. But people look up to their government, whether they like to admit it or not, for the final analysis, they look for somebody to tell them what to do, a real commander in chief. And we haven’t had that lately. Until we get that back, it’s going to be hard to get back on track. We need leadership badly. Hopefully we’ll get it…if not we’ll have to sell the farm I guess!

Johnny: Where did people look to for information and guidance back then?

Dave: That’s an interesting question. I mean information has sped up so rapidly since those times. Its hard to imagine, but radio was the new thing back then. There was no television, no instant news. They had newspapers, but a lot of people never even got that at all. I think that communications and the media have changed the picture. There’s been a sea change.

Johnny: And do you see that for the better or for the worse?

Dave: Well it depends on who is manipulating it. It hasn’t been for the better recently but it can still be turned around. But I don’t think the media is totally to blame. By and large, they do a fair job. Obviously there are certain partisan publications. Always have been, always will be. What’s new is the speed, where now knowledge of what’s happening in India you know today, whereas in my time in the 30’s, it might have been a month or two later…if you ever found out at all.

Johnny: Finally, having lived through the Great Depression, what is your advice to people today?

Dave: Well I think that everybody has to size up their own situation and paddle their own canoe, do the best they can to economize and make the best of everything. But I think its vitally important that we try to elect officials into the government so that it’s a government “of the people, by the people, and really for the people.” That “for the people” part has definitely been lacking since the lobbyists took over Washington and particularly in this administration we have today. FDR was in tune to the needs of the people and he surrounded himself with those that could help get us out of that mess.

Thanks for taking the time to chat with us Dave!

More on Dave’s fascinating background:

Born in the Philadelphia area on January 5th, 1916, Dave was just 13 years old in the fall of 1929. But like many of his peers, the adversity of the Thirties accelerated his entree into adulthood. After attending Cornell University and Yale Law, he enlisted in the Navy in 1940, and for the next six years commanded subchasers, salvage vessels and oil tankers. In one of his more unusual assignments, he provided naval escort to the Duke of Windsor (once King Edward VIII, then Governor of the Bahamas) to the island of Nassau following the murder trial of Freddie de Marigny. The still-unsolved murder of Sir Harry Oakes had captured the world’s attention and the abdicated King was central to the plot. Amidst the stir, Dave sipped cocktails with the Duke, who he describes as a “very personable fellow.” Back in the states, he made a long career of law, once working under Herbert Brownell, eventual Attorney General to President Eisenhower. Dave ended his professional days teaching–his passion–at Quinnipiac University School of Law.

While I may be a fiend for my daily campaign fix, we rarely touch upon politics here at People Are Amazing. But political journalist Adam Nagourney’s take on the “media fog” enveloping the election in yesterday’s Times raised certain apolitical implications worth discussing here. Concerning the Obama campaign’s repeated attempts to recapture the public’s attention following a week of headline-grabbing, less-than-honest shots from his opponent, Nagourney writes:

“That episode reflects what has emerged as one of the most frustrating challenges that Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama are facing going into the final weeks of this campaign: the ways in which the proliferation of communications channels, the fracturing of mass media and the relentless political competition to own each news cycle are combining to reorder the way voters follow campaigns and decide how to vote. It has reached a point where senior campaign aides say they are no longer sure what works, as they stumble through what has become a daily campaign fog, struggling to figure out what voters are paying attention to and, not incidentally, what they are even believing.”

Surely, campaign managers aren’t the only ones stumbling around. Far from isolated to politics, this disorienting fog of misinformation confounds us all, blanketing every piece of news spread via the major media, the Internet, our mobile devices, and even the kitchen table. Unable to see through the fog, all we can do is reach out our hands and grasp onto the first thing slightly resembling a fact. In the race for the White House, these alleged facts begin to comprise a distorted public portrait of the candidates, all right angles in black and white. In our day-to-day lives, we risk spreading harmless, unsubstantiated rumors like “I heard bagged spinach kills,” or “I heard BP is doing great things for the environment.” And I don’t need to tell you what happens when you repeat something long enough. Never before have we as individuals had to navigate such a hazy world; one full of so many “facts,” with such little truth to guide us.

As the historic arbiters of truth, it’s no surprise that major media has struggled to adapt to this new landscape. Once the sole authority and judge of pertinent information, outlets like the Nightly News and the local paper are drowning in a flood of new voices. But this slow attrition cannot simply be attributed to the introduction of new competition, of citizen journalism and investigative vloggers, but to a major shift in how facts are consumed by the public. If the dizzying current election has shown us anything it is the way a fuzzy mix of truth and rumor propagated by both legitimate and shady sources is allowed to pass the “truth test” for no other reason than that it exists as content for the evening newscast. Desperately trying to “set the record straight,” the campaigns have taken turns in their calls to return to “the real issues facing the American people.” But as Obama astutely pointed out last week, “[The media] cover polls, scandals, gaffes and attacks. Those are the four things they cover. And so it is very hard to get a focus on the issues.”

New media has demonstrated the power to energize such a fantasy world where our indulgent instinct to gorge ourselves on the most entertaining, self-affirming “facts” transcends our pursuit of the truth. Sarah Palin’s selection as McCain’s running-mate offered the media’s old guard the journalistic opportunity of the season. With the entire country asking one question, “Who is Sarah Palin?” they merely had to provide an objective profile of what was known. But in transitioning from information arbiters to information curators, the major media took the bridge to nowhere, lending equal attention to the fact and fiction of Internet chatter. Where they ought to have provided clarity on her political and ethical positions, they only clouded our perspectives with talk of her “hunky” husband, or “First Dude,” and her Naughty Monkey brand high heels.

But when you’re playing a game of catch in the fog, no one is to blame when the ball hits the ground. These days, we (the media included) must weigh such a bevy of conflicting information, that it’s often easiest to go with your gut and just believe, or in the media’s case report on, that which sustains you. And while I certainly don’t long for the days of hierarchical journalism, I struggle to find my bearings in the foggy new world of participatory media. Because in the absence of authority, it seems, facts have become just another opinion. But that’s just mine.

- Johnny